Nathan:
Sorry for posting over limit and returning to this issue again, but I think that your legal analogy does not work here.
In the ordinary meaning of the term, "law enforcement" implies a lawful verdict in a more or less independent court of law, where each side is given a chance to pursue its case in a due process. If the verdict is reached, and one side does not comply with it, then the judgment is enforced by proper law enforcement authority.
None of these apply to the NATO aggression in Yugoslavia. If there was something that resembles an independent trial pertaining to the abuses of human rights in Kosovo, it was taking place in German courts hearing the amnesty application cases. According to the material posted, among other, on this list, these courts reached a decision that while the Yugoslaw security forces enforced the law of the land in a draconian fashion, that did not qualify as as human rights abuses that would warrant an asylum, let alone foreign intervention.
To my understanding, the only legal case before an international tribunal pendiong as of this writing, was filed against NATO. The people who call themselves the government of this and other NATO countries, did not even bother to go to court and have it declare Serbia to be in violation of intrnational laws oor human rights. They acted as a cop, judge and executioner - "justice" mafia style.
So where is the analogy to any legal proceedings, let alone international law? To reiterate, the Serbian government has NOT been tried and found in violation of international laws or human rights by an independent tribunal - proclamations of flacks on government payroll notwithstanding.
wojtek